Fast & Furious Conspiracies: Not Just at CBS

The "Fast & Furious" scandal has been a staple of right-wing media, where it is either evidence of a White House dodging accountability (a legitimate argument) or a plot to create chaos in order to pass more stringent gun laws (a bizarre and nonsensical conspiracy theory).

But a recent Fortune investigation (6/27/12) showed that the central claim at the heart of the scandal is flawed. Was there an ATF program to "walk" guns into Mexico in order to catch drug lords on the other side of the border? No. The problem, as the story documented, was that prosecutors were reluctant to bring cases against suspicious gun buyers in Arizona. Why? Weak gun laws that made arrests difficult if not impossible.

But the story, as told by major outlets like CBS Evening News, is one of government incompetence, as agents as a matter of policy passed up chances to arrest criminals.
While the Fortune piece challenges most of the key aspects of the Fast & Furious myth, it lives on in some pretty remarkable ways. Yesterday the Justice Department unsealed indictments in the case most closely connected to Fast & Furious–the murder of U.S. border agent Brian Terry.

But to ABC World News correspondent Pierre Thomas (7/9/12), this development is suspicious, since the government helped kill Terry:

The irony is the United States government is pulling out all the stops to solve a murder it apparently contributed to by putting guns in the hands of Terry's killers.

This did not happen. As the Fortune story shows, the guns found at the scene of the Terry murder were not "walked" there by the government. A gun merchant notified the ATF of a suspicious buyer; by the time the agents were made aware of this, "the legally purchased guns had been gone for three days. The agents had never seen the weapons and had no chance to seize them." Today's Washington Postexplained this pretty clearly as well.

It's a pretty amazing statement from Thomas: The U.S. government gave dangerous criminals guns they could use to shoot at border patrol agents. One would think someone at ABC would want to be careful about making such allegations, especially when there is readily available evidence that this story has been miscast. Then again, the myths around Fast & Furious have been circulated for so long that they seem like established truths.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

While it is probably edifying to Obama supporters, the fact is both Fast and Furious and an earlier program stood-up by the Bush regime, Wide Receiver, demonstrate that the "War on Drugs," like the oxymoronic "War on Terror," is a criminal boondoggle. I would suggest that FAIR readers actually explore the intricacies of these programs rather than falling for partisan propaganda. A good place to start would be by examining the yeoman's work by a real investigative journalist, Bill Conroy over at Narco News.

Is there a "partisan" angle here? Of course there is! However, readers shouldn't get bogged down in a Democrat vs. Republican sideshow. Both parties have blood on their hands and are up to their eyeballs in illicit drug money. Can you say Wachovia Bank http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-07/wachovia-s-drug-habit.html, an equal opportunity contributor to both parties.

Whose filthy hands may be all over Fast and Furious? Well, just ask the CIA. Oh wait, that's a "conspiracy theory."

I spent 47 years in broadcast – 28 of them in major market news and 24 of those years with a CBS O-and-O. I can vouch for the sloth and the bedrock ignorance of a substantial fraction of the practitioners of broadcast journalism. The ABC correspondent's fumble does not surprise although it disappoints.

Well boy oh boy that was better" twister" than I used to play with Mary ann Malooski.So now(according to Fair) the government did not sell, or allow guns to go south of the border?Something those who ran the operation have admitted happened.And those guns did not kill anyone especially our agent?Again not something those who were in charge of this mess agree with.
Bottom line my liberal friends……..The attorney General should turn over EVERYTHING requested/demanded by Congress immediately or be disbarred and sent to a jail cell.That moves up and down the ladder to anyone refusing congressional subpeona's.As for the president ….legally he can hide behind his presidential executive privilege up until it goes to the courts.Usually it does not go that far as political negotiations find a way.Why he and the AG are hiding behind it is the astounding thing.As he demands Mitt turn over all his wages(no law says he should) going back to his 1rst grade lemonade stand…this guy stonewalls Congressional warrants.You cant make this stuff up

michael e.:
Shame on you, "You can't make this stuff up, "…. but you just did. I didn't know Mr, Romney made "wages?" I had no idea hedge fund people made wages, as they say they make investments, or take risks., or leverage things and people.
If some in Congress want to be so "fast and FURIOUS" then I wish they would be a bit harder on those banksters and Wall streeters.

I do believe that this is a tempest in a teacup, but it would be wonderful if Mr. Thomas spent more time examining the evidence before he announced his beliefs. I mean, Dan Rather got in trouble for that with the GW "military record." It seems that the ghost of William Randolph Hearst has risen and trust in the Fourth Estate is withering away.

Just read these posts. Michael, you have reached a new – hey, it's got to be high, as no rational person would say this – when you refer to Romney's income as "wages."
I'm still laughing.
It is his tax returns we want to see. Completely, all of them. Just like his father, a really decent man, presented when he ran for President.
Nothing to hide? Then, what's the problem. Let us see and judge for ourselves.
Besides, I think it is decidedly unAmerican to run for President claiming to love and support the country, yet keep a trillion dollars overseas TAX FREE. Isn't there something hypocritical about harping on the national debt while refusing to help lower it by a little personal monetary sacrifice? Don't we all owe this country something (other than our boyish grin) as pay back for being able to live here?

@Elizabeth: How about that? Our troll is, as usual, incoherent. Making shit up, devolving his dumb-ass arguments in favor of stupidity, going to the mat with his preposterous lies to protect sociopaths like the Romneys (how about Anne Romney's repulsive, ignorant, and classless remarks the other day? What a freak. She's worse than her husband).

I thought the line was "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." So who cares from where the guns came? Republicans? Are you kidding? How can they take an issue and bend it so well? Truly, only sociopaths do it well. I'm just sayin'….